BOG Meetings: Bettman optimistic 23/24 salary cap could go up to $86 million

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

They call up White Out 403 and ask them?

It’s one of a few ways, yes. They almost certainly do a mix of qualitative (which could take the form of a phone call) and quantitative research. In both cases, they are likely going to want representation of the “passionate hockey fan” (someone who goes to games, discusses hockey online, watches hockey regularly, etc) in their data.

Right now the Flames are experiencing their lowest average attendance in a non-COVID year since 2003-04. Let’s say you’re in charge of pricing for the Flames. Are you going to dismiss negative online sentiment about ticket prices with a “well I work for a $5B dollar business, I know more about pricing than some angry customers”? Probably not.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s one of a few ways, yes. They almost certainly do a mix of qualitative (which could take the form of a phone call) and quantitative research. In both cases, they are likely going to want representation of the “passionate hockey fan” (someone who goes to games, discusses hockey online, watches hockey regularly, etc) in their data.

So you agree that they understand market analysis, and don't just blindly hike prices until it doesn't work anymore. Great. We can finally close this discussion.

Right now the Flames are experiencing their lowest average attendance in a non-COVID year since 2003-04. Let’s say you’re in charge of pricing for the Flames. Are you going to dismiss negative online sentiment about ticket prices with a “well I work for a $5B dollar business, I know more about pricing than some angry customers”? Probably not.

Is this a serious question? You can't possibly think you're adding to any real conversation with this silly leading question, do you?

You are showing, once again, that you will take any and every turn you can think of to keep a conversation going and try to prove you are right. It's time to let this one go.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So you agree that they understand market analysis, and don't just blindly hike prices until it doesn't work anymore. Great. We can finally close this discussion.


Is this a serious question? You can't possibly think you're adding to any real conversation with this silly leading question, do you?

You are showing, once again, that you will take any and every turn you can think of to keep a conversation going and try to prove you are right. It's time to let this one go.

I never said they blindly hiked prices until it doesn’t work anymore, I said WTMWB (which is not just blindly hiking prices) would be a bad pricing strategy if it shuts long-term future customers (children in families) out of the experience.

As for the second part, it is a serious question. Why are you so emotionally invested in the personal side of this conversation? It would go smoother if you were able to have it normally instead of making multiple comments about some historical injustice I’ve done to you in terms of trying to prove im right. I’m not trying to prove I’m right, because what I said (the thing you disagreed with) was a fact, go back and read it again. If you want to make up definitions of things and deny facts I’m not going to care if you agree with me or not because your opinion isn’t valuable. I like chatting with you though so I wish you wouldn’t do that.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I never said they blindly hiked prices until it doesn’t work anymore, I said WTMWB (which is not just blindly hiking prices) would be a bad pricing strategy if it shuts long-term future customers (children in families) out of the experience.

As for the second part, it is a serious question. Why are you so emotionally invested in the personal side of this conversation? It would go smoother if you were able to have it normally instead of making multiple comments about some historical injustice I’ve done to you in terms of trying to prove im right. I’m not trying to prove I’m right, because what I said (the thing you disagreed with) was a fact, go back and read it again. If you want to make up definitions of things and deny facts I’m not going to care if you agree with me or not because your opinion isn’t valuable. I like chatting with you though so I wish you wouldn’t do that.

Why do you think I am emotionally invested in this chat? Or more emotionally invested than you or others are (as I guess everyone is at least a little emotionally invested in the chats they are in, or they wouldn't be in them)? IMO, White Out 403 is quite emotionally invested, as he/she seems to be personally affronted by any and all actions of any large corporation, or the rich people that run them. But I'm good, thanks.

The conversation has gone full circle. We both agree that they would consider future demand, and the effect of any current strategies, in their prices and marketing strategies. So what are we still discussing?

[White Out 403]

watching the Jets Senators game feels like I'm being waterboarded by advertisers. I ####ing hate it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

watching the Jets Senators game feels like I'm being waterboarded by advertisers. I ####ing hate it.

You have a choice.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You have a choice.

Oh? The tsn broadcast? Espn?

Or do you mean just give up on the Winnipeg Jets? Yeah that's a really great choice

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Oh? The tsn broadcast? Espn?

Or do you mean just give up on the Winnipeg Jets? Yeah that's a really great choice

Choices are rarely 50/50......does not mean you cant make one.

If you are priced out of something.....dont buy it fer chrissakes. That is literally what supply and demand means.

But dont turn around and whine because what you want is out of your price range...i want a new Vette....but no way im going to get it.

Its so simple to spend your money elsewhere.

[White Out 403]

Wtf are you on about? Are you having 2 different conversations?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Wtf are you on about? Are you having 2 different conversations?

At this rate you can track how insane the overall post is going to be in this thread by how bad their definition of supply and demand is.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

At this rate you can track how insane the overall post is going to be in this thread by how bad their definition of supply and demand is.

I think he's conflating my viewership on Tv with ticket prices now. I have no idea. It's like debating a feral mongoose.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The NHL is a $5B business. Do you think the teams all act entirely independently with respect to marketing and pricing research.

Of course each team has to set their own ticket prices, but they aren't doing that blind.

The NHL is not a single business so adding up all the revenues of each team means little. It operates more as single industry. The teams compete against each other, separate financial statements, separate tax returns.

Each team owns its hockey operations, ticket sales, marketing, back office, arena negotiations and operations and most everything else.

Go to an NHL game in different arenas and it’s a very different experience. From cost to in game experience.

I didn’t say the league does nothing or teams are running “blind”. Those are your words. But it is very obvious teams have near total autonomy on most parts of their operation.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No it doesn’t. Housing and entertainment tickets work on two very different systems. None of what you said here is relevant.

Oh. So because you say so, I'm wrong. Gotcha.

And it’s a bit more complicated than “basic supply and demand” (which is always a funny phrase to watch people trot out). One of the biggest and most obvious differences is that the NHL cannot charge the maximum the market will bear if that pricing does exclude families (like WhiteOut said) or puts them out of competition with other entertainment options.

So far, you're wrong.

Ensuring people can afford to bring their kids to games is essential in building out the next generation of ticket buyers. This is already an issue for most major sports, where younger generations are happier experiencing them solely through a screen or not at all. It’s a problem that will get worse the longer it goes on, especially for hockey where actually playing the game is also prohibitively expensive for a lot of families.

Is the problem ticket prices, or is it that a lot of young people prefer to get their entertainment online and aren't interested in any kind of sports? If the latter, pricing won't fix the problem.

The NHL can’t just follow “basic supply and demand.” A lot of businesses can’t. There are things like building and protecting culture and a future customer base that needs to be factored in, which includes pricing structures and accessibility.

The claim I was responding to was that the existing fans can't afford the existing ticket prices. Nothing was said about the next generation until you came barging in and moved the goalposts 20 years into the future.

So while we're talking about relevancy, nothing you have said is even in the same decade with the issue being discussed.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“A business knows more about what customers will accept than the customer.”

Interesting strategy. Let’s see if it pays off.

Don't act like that was a stupid remark. Businesses do market research on what their customers want. A customer is very unlikely to do market research to find out what all the other customers want.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The NHL is not a single business so adding up all the revenues of each team means little. It operates more as single industry. The teams compete against each other, separate financial statements, separate tax returns.

Each team owns its hockey operations, ticket sales, marketing, back office, arena negotiations and operations and most everything else.

Go to an NHL game in different arenas and it’s a very different experience. From cost to in game experience.

I didn’t say the league does nothing or teams are running “blind”. Those are your words. But it is very obvious teams have near total autonomy on most parts of their operation.

Teams compete against each other, but the NHL is very much a single entity and product, as well as being a collection of 32 individual entities, at the same time.

With respect to sales, marketing, market analytics, forecasting, and all macro-economic analysis and planning, it works very much as a single entity on macro items, and/or a group of related companies working in partnership, on others, depending on the situation. Of course they all also have ultimate autonomy to do their own thing, but that doesn't change the point being discussed.

This isn't really debatable, nor earth-shattering. If you think each team is mostly making their marketing and forecasting decisions independently, other than local-level items, well then we can just disagree and leave it there.

And really not sure what point you are trying to make. You don't think it's a $5B entity. Cool. Does that change the discussion at all?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Oh. So because you say so, I'm wrong. Gotcha.



So far, you're wrong.



Is the problem ticket prices, or is it that a lot of young people prefer to get their entertainment online and aren't interested in any kind of sports? If the latter, pricing won't fix the problem.



The claim I was responding to was that the existing fans can't afford the existing ticket prices. Nothing was said about the next generation until you came barging in and moved the goalposts 20 years into the future.

So while we're talking about relevancy, nothing you have said is even in the same decade with the issue being discussed.

This response is a little bit all over the place, so I’m not sure what you want me to do with it. You’re wrong because you are, not because I say so. Your question is like asking someone if grass is green just because they say so. Acting indignant doesn’t make you less wrong. And you’ve topped it off by incorrectly labelling a factual statement as wrong, so I have to assume you probably just don’t understand pricing strategies for this kind of product (which is fine, it’s not a fault or anything, why would you understand it?) but at that point I don’t know why you would pretend to.

Your either/or scenario isn’t really one, because both of those things are connected, and I don’t know many people who would claim that pricing can’t or won’t be part of creating interest and bringing a desirable market segment in. Of course it will help solve that problem. It may not alone fix that problem, but nobody said it would. It can, however, help to create that problem in the first place.

The claim you were responding to actually went “at some point it will become too expensive for fans to afford tickets.” Not existing fans at existing prices. Regardless, it seemed like moving the goalposts because the discussion moved beyond a limited understanding of it (careless labels like “basic supply and demand” and “what the market will bear”) into the actual factors that need to be and usually are considered when it comes to what they charge for something like Flames tickets. The goalposts didn’t move, you just weren’t on the field yet.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Don't act like that was a stupid remark. Businesses do market research on what their customers want. A customer is very unlikely to do market research to find out what all the other customers want.

It wasn’t a stupid remark, but it was a funny remark considering that the way businesses find out what their customers want is by asking their customers.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

At this rate you can track how insane the overall post is going to be in this thread by how bad their definition of supply and demand is.

I demand that you supply me with hockey tickets.

How did I do?